On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 02:45 +0200, jerzy.karczmarczuk at info.unicaen.fr
wrote:
> PR Stanley writes:
>> > One of the reasons I'm interested in Wikipedia and Wikibook is because
> > you're more likely to find Latex source code used for typesetting the
> > maths.
> > Latex is the one and only 100% tool right now.
> > A lot of publishers use Latex but try to get anything from them in
> > electronic form.
>> I don't understand you. WHAT YOU WANT?
>> 1. Many articles in Wikipedia typeset math formulae as *images*, you don't
> really see the LaTeX sources. Some formulae are typed through plain HTML.
>> 2. MOST journal publishers who recommend LaTeX give you the appropriate
> .cls files. Kluwer, Journal of Functional Programming, etc. Sometimes
> the attached manuals contain formulae. Whom did you ask, and what did
> you want?
>> 3. LaTeX is NOT the one and only one. Texts which should be printed, OK,
> I format in LaTeX. Presentations on screen, my lectures, seminars, etc.
> I format in MathML, and I show using Mozilla, etc., standard navigator.
> Of course, making MathML by hand is like eating oysters with shells.
>> I recommend then the script of Peter Jipsen
>http://www1.chapman.edu/~jipsen/mathml/asciimath.html> which permits you to write your formulae intuitively, and fast. And
> reasonably well, although the comparison with LaTeX would be difficult.
This is my problem with XML --- the syntax is so verbose, people are
driven to *author* in anything but XML. TeX can be authored directly,
by a real person, using a standard text editor. Infinitely superior to
XML.
jcc